Consensus Overview
Consensus decision-making entails resolving majority and minority views through creative deliberation. "Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some percentage of majority (ex. over 50%, over 2/3), a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument...This empowers minorities, those with objections that are hard to state quickly, and those who are less skilled in debate." Consensus decision-making uses different processes and has different procedures, behavioral norms, and etiquette than conventional voting. Consensus decision-making yields a decision that all participants consider acceptable. Instead of voting for a proposal, participants block proposals that they find unacceptable. Consensus may strike for unanimous acceptance, or large groups may aim for consensus minus one, consensus minus two, etc. Consensus process is well-suited to deliberation of concrete actions that will be taken by a group. In "low-conflict" consensus, it is sufficient for participants to act as "satisficers" instead of "maximizers." LINK Instead of trying to win a particular favored position, participants should move towards a consensus position that is acceptable to all members of the group. (In other words: We are not voting'' 'for''. We are blocking against. And we try not to.) "High-conflict" consensus implies a creative group process in which no member has brought a proposal to the table acceptable to the entire group. At this point the group should try and cobble together and integrate the best elements of many alternative proposals, creating a proposal through the process of constructive deliberation. Ideally, a proposal in consensus should be blocked only if the blocking participant thinks that the proposal constitutes a major violation of group ethics, or that it is otherwise destructive to the organization. Participants in a consensus process let the practical needs of the action in question dictate positions. (So you can't just go around blocking things because you feel like it, because you're a rules lawyer, or because you aren't completely comfy with some particular detail. So! As consensus blockers, we don't want to wait around and block everything that isn't the best possible outcome. We are not maximizers. We are satisficers. We want to get the ball rolling on whatever we're trying to accomplish. So if we think it will work? We do not block.) The conventional parliamentary model of decision-making assumes the primacy of the individuals doing the voting, and that in a given decision they will split between a majority opinion and one or several minority positions. The majority position is allowed to "win out." The deliberation itself tends easily towards an adversarial tone and a contest with victors and losers. In consensus, the process of forming a unified position is more fundamental than the particular desires of individuals involved in the decision-making. Individuals are expected to remain "unattached" to ideas they generate, and instead consider the process as one that allows a "true" answer to present itself to the whole group. Final decisions are meant to syncretic assemblages of best ideas and interests, rather than a proposal offered unmodified to a whole group. Because any participant can end a proposal, consensus requires a great deal of maturity and understanding between participants to function effectively and efficiently. To summarize, the spirit of consensus places a high priority on syncretic, creative decision-making, in which participants are more empowered in the decision-making process and the process itself is a process of co-production. More Resources: http://wiki.infoshop.org/Consensus_decision-making